|
From: | dak |
Subject: | Re: Implement make-bow-stencil, make-tie-stencil for use in markup-commands undertie and overtie (issue 270640043 by address@hidden) |
Date: | Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:51:19 +0000 |
Sorry for yet finding more stuff that, after all, could likely be improved. At least I did so pretty quickly this time. https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode623 scm/define-markup-commands.scm:623: (direction DOWN) Should this markup command be called "undertie" or should it rather be "tie", with "undertie" explicitly overriding `direction'? Because the rather explicit name '\undertie' seems a bit inconsistent with the behavior of { c'1^\markup \undertie hm } where the direction is determined by the direction specified for the TextScript. https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm File scm/stencil.scm (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm#newcode86 scm/stencil.scm:86: (interval-index '(0 . 1) offset-index)) This is just (+ 0.1 (* 0.3 angularity)) I think and right-control would then be (- 1 left-control). I think that with the points being based on (0 . 1), the combined interval-index/offset-index calculation (which never was hotness itself) is not exactly making things clearer. https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |